1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

[d3x0r]

last night it struck me that my math was a little wrong... and came back to check some progress....


rohndoe had a pretty good demo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTWwp5qUY3U


I guess gotoluc had built quite a contraption too... didn't quite get off the ground though

the longer the vertical shaft, the less work is used (L2a/L1*Mg) to raise the weights so they can fall, but the real work is resulting as torque on the shaft, (L2*Mg).  removing Mg as a common factor from both leaves L2 (length of the arm),  L2a (length of the arm + a little for the offset of the horizontal from the bottom), L1 (Length of the arm from the horizontal to the top).

L2 is constant so whatever length arm you have determines the base multiplier of torque. 
L1 increasing decreases the work to raise the weight.


Oh, but it's the sin of the angle only that gets applied to the torque so a longer arm has a lesser angle (unless the top rotation is increased in diamter, which is doable I suppose; limited by the angle of ... well no, I guess a gear system on two hemispheres could be made such that even 90 degrees can result in good torque transfer.  (100% gravity to torque translation)  (or really just 2 45 degree gears since it doesn't have to pivot)

I guess 1.0 translation of mass to torque would be having the drive bar horizontal (attached image)

(Attachment 2)

you don't gain RPM directly - the red (output generator/transmission) could be a gearbox to leverage it.  The lower the output load, the lower the weight will be up to a maximum.... would need to be some sort of limit.

The outside ring would have to be fixed to the center part and rotate together... (lazy suzan plate in the center? )

That design is of course less horizontal space efficient but gains vertical stacking efficiency (somewhat). 

(classic john device model, with a mostly vertical shaft, but then output torque only gains the sin(theta) torque, where theta is < 5 degrees, whereas the above is 90 degrees which sin(90) = 1.0 )
(attachment 1)


Some possible builds of a flat device....
The top is like a peice of plywood or something with a hole cut in it in the center for the gear drive, and a hole for the arm to go through, can then mount the drive arm down to that....
the second is the same sort of idea but maybe a bicycle wheel with a few spokes removed so the drive gear can get through...would have to keep the bar from moving in and out and keep it meshed against the center gear...


(attachment 3)


But this sort of arrangement simplifies the math some; should be easier to prove that the linear force required on the outside of the drive is less than the torque force you can get out for basically any mass > 1 on the mass-arm.  and based on how much greater you can then consider moving it back to a more vertical drive


But then also the load needs to be a greater force than the input in order to require any gain from the pivoting mass.  The mass would hang vertically and basically be a 1:1 transfer from the input drive to the output drive, then as the output requires more load, the weight would raise and compensate, and the input would gain at a rate of L2/L1 ( if L2(the mass arm) is shorter than L1 (the drive arm) the required force will then be that fraction of force required, and you'll start to note a greater output.


The skinner device would mostly be leveraging its inertial to drive a lathe, and probably only a very very tiny shift in the weights would be required.  Full load would be the drive shaft ahead of the mass by 90 degrees.  (even in Rohnjoe's video because there's no real load, the mass is only slightly lagged from the drive, only the slight force required to overcome the friction on the bottom would lag the weight).

---
After posting that on energetic forum; I did some searching for 'gravity torque multipler'  and or 'gravity torque amplifier' and didn't really find anything similar. (gravity torque amplifier did find gotoluc's stuff and a few others skinner related)

And sorry for wide images; they're just slightly too wide though

[d3x0r]

nevermind; I guess in the flat orientation the force has to be applied on the drive side.

[MoRo]

 

The[/font][/color] [/font][/color]Ingenious[/font][/color] [/font][/color]principal[/font][/color] [/font][/color]behind[/font][/color] [/font][/color]William[/font][/color] [/font][/color]Skinner's Gravity[/font][/color] [/font][/color]Machine[/font][/color] [/font][/color]That[/font][/color] [/font][/color]Everyone[/font][/color] [/font][/color]Overlooked[/font][/color]![/font][/color]

[MoRo]

William Skinner's Clear As Mud Gravity Machine Principal
That Everyone Overlooked!

[MoRo]

In this Skinner's Gravity Machine, the smaller upper weights are offset on an axis. Rotating this axis at a constant rate introduces a cascading chain reaction for any number of successively larger and similarly arranged masses below! The bottom level receives continuous axis-altering torque from the levels above, allowing us to generate virtually unlimited amounts of clean energy from gravity with very little input!
Notice that in the domino picture in the above post, previous smaller dominos all apply torque to topple the larger dominos! This is how Skinner's machine is supposed to work!